Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Scroll to top

Top

No Comments

It’s not Obama, it’s US!

Leslie Brown

Who’da thunk? It’s not Obama, it’s just us being “haters”! Wow, so glad we got that cleared up! Obama’s just “doing his job.”

“Stop being mad all the time,” he said of Republicans, chuckling. “Stop just hatin’ all the time. Let’s get some work done.” “So sue me,” he added.

~President Obama

Does this sound like the leader of the FREE WORLD talking, or a prepubescent boy?

Apparently, as Americans, if we get a little peeved when diseased gangsters illegally enter our borders getting “three hots and a cot” on OUR dime, like FOR THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL BORN LIFE, WE are simply haters. O.K. fine. This is the alternate reality in which we now live in.

Brilliant legal mind Ann Coulter pointed out the “elephant” in the room is the actual LAW regarding immigration. The William Wilberforce Child Sex Trafficking Act:

“Any unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed by the Department of Homeland Security, except for an unaccompanied alien child from a contiguous country (i.e. Mexico — or Canada, so as not to sound discriminatory) … shall be — placed in removal proceedings … eligible for relief … at no cost to the child and provided access to counsel.”

Obviously, that’s the whole ball of wax. Once a kid is in, given La Raza attorneys and a hearing date, he’s never going home. No immigration judge is going to listen to a lawyer-manufactured sob story and say, “No, I’m sorry, that didn’t touch my heart. You have to go back to Huehuetenango.”

But the law’s definition of “unaccompanied alien child” limits the hearings to kids who have no relatives in the United States. If your relatives live here, the law assumes you’re not being sex-trafficked — you’re trying to join them.

Here’s the definition — note subsection (C):
“(g) Definitions

“(2) the term ‘unaccompanied alien child’ means a child who —

(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;

(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and

(C) with respect to whom —

(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.”
The law is not — as George Will suggested on “Fox News Sunday” — a general humanitarian mandate allowing all 2 billion poor children of the world to show up at our border and be told, “Welcome to America!” It’s a law to combat sex trafficking.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Vice President Joe Biden wrote the law — and Feinstein isn’t stupid. She’s well aware of illegal immigration. That’s why the law specifically excludes two huge categories of illegal aliens from getting hearings: (1) Mexicans; and (2) children who have relatives in the U.S.

Those cases look more like illegal immigration than sex trafficking. (Didn’t anyone wonder why Mexican kids are excluded?)

Mexicans make up the lion’s share of illegal immigrants in the U.S., and children with relatives already living in the U.S. are probably just trying to rejoin family — not trying to escape a fiendish kidnapper about to sell them into sex slavery.

According to last Friday’s New York Times, almost 90 percent of the 53,000 illegal alien kids given refugee status since October have already been transferred to parents or relatives living in the U.S. By the law’s clear terms, those 47,000 kids should have been summarily turned away at the border — just as Mexican children are.

(Democrats wailing about a “humanitarian” crisis — after calculating the precise number of voters they need — evidently don’t care about the Mexican kids.) ~Ann Coulter

SO, let’s get this straight, WE THE PEOPLE are trying to enforce the rule of law, which makes us “haters”. Somebody just shoot me.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-07-30.html

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Submit a Comment